Aggregator

iStock/Getty Images Plus

This fall marks the seventh anniversary of a Federal Communication Commission Notice of Proposed Rulemaking intended to take a fresh look at the elder broadcast service in the United States and to try to shore its licensees up.

The ongoing effort to “revitalize” the AM band has created opportunities for licensees to use FM translators, modified some coverage standards for daytimers, and introduced some commonsense technical rule revisions including elimination of the “ratchet rule” and the introduction of moment method proof-of-performance.

Al Shuldiner, chief of the FCC’s Audio Division, told Radio World that the commission views AM revitalization as “a big success story.”

Several observers told Radio World that these moves have provided AM broadcasters some relief but that the economic model for AM licensees, still challenged, has been clouded further by the COVID-19 pandemic.

By far the biggest impact has been the introduction of cross-band FM translators of AM license holders. Now those licensees can serve communities 24/7, reach more listeners and have more of a presence at night.

But critics say that handing out more FM signals isn’t doing anything to help the actual AM band.

“It’s in the oven”

According to the FCC’s latest tally there are 4,570 AM stations licensed in the United States. Approximately 2,800 of them rebroadcast on one or more FM translators.

The number of AMs on the air with hybrid digital HD Radio is unclear; over the years about 250 told the FCC that they were using the format, but many turned it off later, and the commission doesn’t track who remains on the air with it.

According to the commission, fewer than 250 are authorized to operate in the HD Radio hybrid mode, which combines digital and analog transmission; and it’s unclear how many of those actually are airing AM HD Radio.

Commission Chairman Ajit Pai has advocated for AM broadcasters for years. However the commission has yet to take action on additional proposals such as allowing all-digital AM or reducing nighttime signal protection for 50 kW Class A AM stations. There is no open comment period at present.

[Update: Chairman Pai announced on Oct. 5 that the commission will vote on the all-digital option later this month; read that story here.]

Ben Downs, vice president and general manager of Bryan Broadcasting, is an active interested observer. He says AM revitalization hasn’t exactly stalled but that the industry is waiting for the next puzzle piece to fall into place. “Just like the Domino’s pizza tracker, I’d say it’s in the oven,” he said.

Bryan Broadcasting petitioned the FCC in 2019 to authorize the MA3 all-digital mode of HD Radio for any AM station that chooses to do so. Advocates such as the National Association of Broadcasters support this idea.

“We have an FCC that is willing to look at the problems AM stations face and work with them to come up with solutions,” said Downs.

Technical questions raised by the FCC in its NPRM about all-digital are complex, Downs said.

“There were issues of calculating operating power in digital versus analog, coverage area, measuring modulation, emission masks, efficiency and impact on adjacent channels. One of all-digital’s benefits is that it occupies much less bandwidth than the current hybrid mode; thus less sideband hash,” Downs said.

Shuldiner at the FCC noted the “strong industry support” for voluntary all-digital on AM.

But the level of radio owner interest in actually switching off analog signals remains uncertain. Existing analog radios would not be able to pick up these new transmissions; and some observers also doubt that major groups would be eager to convert assets to all-digital in the middle of a pandemic.

Goodbye to skywave

Much has been written in Radio World and elsewhere about the experimental effort of WWFD(AM), licensed to Frederick, Md., and owned by Hubbard Radio, which operates in all-digital mode under special temporary authority.

Joel Oxley, senior VP/GM for Hubbard’s Washington, D.C., cluster, said the band cannot survive in its current form.

“I firmly believe AM needs go digital and say goodbye to the skywave. Having stations that are unlistenable when the sun goes down makes no sense. The extra coverage for just a few stations is not justified in this day and age,” Oxley said. “If changes aren’t made quickly to improve distribution there will be no viable business plans for most AMs.”

However, he said, the commission will only support all-digital if the radio industry expresses support for it.

Another station received experimental authority to test all-digital this year. WIOE in Fort Wayne, Ind., broadcast in MA3 for a few days in the spring but it received listener complaints, after which it ran in all-digital mostly at night. It concluded the digital experiment in September; owner Brian Walsh indicated that his listeners weren’t ready for all-digital AM.

Multicast play

John Garziglia, communications law attorney for Womble Bond Dickinson, wonders whether receiver manufacturers will make radios capable of carrying multicast signals for digital AM stations.

“Receiver manufacturers have not shown an inclination to make such receivers available, absent the FCC taking a proactive stance,” he said.

“The question is whether receiver manufacturers have to manufacture such receivers first for the FCC to move its regulatory roadblock to the carriage of multiple AM sub-channels on FM translators, like is now allowed for FM HD and FM translators — or more to the point, if the FCC does not encourage AM all-digital with multiplex sub-channels and carriage on FM translators.”

As we’ve reported, Garziglia’s client Urban One received permission to operate WTLC(AM) in Indianapolis experimentally with all-digital, but the company’s leader told Radio World the test might not happen because the FCC refused Urban One’s request to rebroadcast digital multicasts of the AM test station over two analog FM translators.

“AM radio is at best beyond challenged, and at worst headed towards extinction,” Alfred C. Liggins III said. “Any digital applications that improve coverage and the ability to deliver multiple streams of content are critical to AM’s survival.”

As of mid-September those were the only three stations that had received STAs. As of early October WWFD remains the only all-digital AM on the air.

Tail wags dog

One veteran engineering professional told Radio World he sees “no major U.S. radio companies showing any interest in investing in AM all-digital; and that for many owners, keeping their AM stations on the air now is pretty much just about retaining their FM translator footprint rather than keeping the AM on the air on its own merits.”

The FCC says it has no plans at present for additional windows for FM translator applications exclusively for AM licensees.

Another expert envisions a day when AM broadcasters are able to geo-locate several FM translators around its service area to offer hyper-localized content — “with the FM translators carrying discrete local programming elements and the AM station carrying programming elements that cover the entire area,” this observer said.

(Such ideas for translators have been in the news recently because technology company GeoBroadcast Solutions wants the FCC to allow FM stations to air unique content on synchronized FM boosters, to create very localized “geo-targeting” ability. A group of two dozen owners then told the FCC that if it were to allow that, it should also allow translators to originate content, potentially a much bigger change in the FM landscape. It’s under such a scenario that an AM station could create the geo-targeted cluster described above.)

The unnamed expert, however, added, “There is also a chance the secondary status of cross-band translators could result in an AM station losing its paired FM translator service someday.”

Awaiting true reform

Ben Dawson, consulting engineer at Hatfield & Dawson, doesn’t believe AM revitalization really ever started.

“The real meat of the AM revitalization NPRM was to finally make realistic changes in the basic allocation rules to reflect modern noise and propagation conditions, which are significantly different than those of the 1930s, which the present rules are based upon,” he said.

“And that simply hasn’t happened. When we’ve talked with FCC staff about it, the impression we’ve gotten is that the upper echelons of the commission just don’t think it has much importance.”

Dawson believes the cross-service FM translators allocated to AM licensees have cluttered the FM band. “Translators and low-power FM stations are just being sandwiched in.”

Digital AM in the United States faces an uphill battle, Dawson said, in part because many owners and large groups object to paying licensing fees. (While Xperi has offered AM stations a license for all-digital HD Radio technology in perpetuity without fees, that offer is seen as a kickstarter rather than a long-term policy.)

“The adoption of FM, NTSC, FM stereo, digital TV; none of those had licensing fees,” Dawson continued. “And neither should digital AM. And of course, DRM [Digital Radio Mondiale] doesn’t and is already being employed in some countries.

“But we need to develop the allocation rules for all digital and movement toward that has been very slow.”

Dawson added, “The commission did change the antenna efficiency rules, which was a help, but the proposed changes in daytime groundwave overlap and returning to using only co-channel stations in skywave RSS calculations and going back to 50% rather than 25% exclusion can be considered separately from the Class A station imbroglio.”

The latter refers to contentious proposals to change the Class A “clear channel” rules, an idea that has not advanced.

On that point, veteran attorney David Oxenford of Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP sees a possible rift among large and small radio broadcasters.

“The issue seems to be a battle between local stations that want more local service full-time at the expense of the clear-channel stations whose signals would receive interference if that local service is granted, and potentially sacrificing some of the service from what are among the few still successful AM stations in major markets,” Oxenford said.

But at the commission, Al Shuldiner cited concerns from the Federal Emergency Management Agency about the possible impact on presidential alerting if Class A protections were altered. “We remain open to working with the industry to find a path forward on these proposals but do not have any immediate plans to change those protection levels.”

Strictly voluntary

On one thing, broadcasters have been clear: They oppose any kind of mandate to go all-digital — for reasons of cost, digital receiver availability and opposition to government mandates in general, and because some AM operations are in fact successful businesses.

iHeartMedia, which owns 245 AM stations, told the FCC earlier this year that it appreciates the commission’s goal of providing stations flexibility to adopt alternative technologies.

“However, it is imperative that all-digital AM service be wholly voluntary for each individual AM station, as each licensee can best determine the value to its listeners of such an all-digital transition based on the degree of digital-receiver penetration in that AM station’s demographic and market, as well as the economic costs of such a conversion.”

Read more of Al Shuldiner’s interview with Radio World.

Comment on this or any story. Email radioworld@futurenet.com. `

The post Special Report: AM Advocates Watch and Worry appeared first on Radio World.

iStock/Getty Images Plus

This fall marks the seventh anniversary of a Federal Communication Commission Notice of Proposed Rulemaking intended to take a fresh look at the elder broadcast service in the United States and to try to shore its licensees up.

The ongoing effort to “revitalize” the AM band has created opportunities for licensees to use FM translators, modified some coverage standards for daytimers, and introduced some commonsense technical rule revisions including elimination of the “ratchet rule” and the introduction of moment method proof-of-performance.

Al Shuldiner, chief of the FCC’s Audio Division, told Radio World that the commission views AM revitalization as “a big success story.”

Several observers told Radio World that these moves have provided AM broadcasters some relief but that the economic model for AM licensees, still challenged, has been clouded further by the COVID-19 pandemic.

By far the biggest impact has been the introduction of cross-band FM translators of AM license holders. Now those licensees can serve communities 24/7, reach more listeners and have more of a presence at night.

But critics say that handing out more FM signals isn’t doing anything to help the actual AM band.

“It’s in the oven”

According to the FCC’s latest tally there are 4,570 AM stations licensed in the United States. Approximately 2,800 of them rebroadcast on one or more FM translators.

The number of AMs on the air with hybrid digital HD Radio is unclear; over the years about 250 told the FCC that they were using the format, but many turned it off later, and the commission doesn’t track who remains on the air with it.

According to the commission, fewer than 250 are authorized to operate in the HD Radio hybrid mode, which combines digital and analog transmission; and it’s unclear how many of those actually are airing AM HD Radio.

Commission Chairman Ajit Pai has advocated for AM broadcasters for years. However the commission has yet to take action on additional proposals such as allowing all-digital AM or reducing nighttime signal protection for 50 kW Class A AM stations. There is no open comment period at present.

Ben Downs, vice president and general manager of Bryan Broadcasting, is an active interested observer. He says AM revitalization hasn’t exactly stalled but that the industry is waiting for the next puzzle piece to fall into place. “Just like the Domino’s pizza tracker, I’d say it’s in the oven,” he said.

Bryan Broadcasting petitioned the FCC in 2019 to authorize the MA3 all-digital mode of HD Radio for any AM station that chooses to do so. Advocates such as the National Association of Broadcasters support this idea.

“We have an FCC that is willing to look at the problems AM stations face and work with them to come up with solutions,” said Downs.

“There was an NPRM released by the commission Thanksgiving last year that proposes a digital next step, so we are waiting on the FCC and their digital rulemaking. Given that most of the country has been on pause for the past few months, any impatience isn’t really warranted. But the passage of time and changing audience expectations aren’t AM radio’s friend.”

Technical questions raised by the FCC in its NPRM about all-digital are complex, Downs said.

“There were issues of calculating operating power in digital versus analog, coverage area, measuring modulation, emission masks, efficiency and impact on adjacent channels. One of all-digital’s benefits is that it occupies much less bandwidth than the current hybrid mode; thus less sideband hash,” Downs said.

Shuldiner at the FCC noted the “strong industry support” for voluntary all-digital on AM and said he hopes ‘to move forward in that proceeding by the end of the year.”

But the level of radio owner interest in actually switching off analog signals remains uncertain. Existing analog radios would not be able to pick up these new transmissions; and some observers also doubt that major groups would be eager to convert assets to all-digital in the middle of a pandemic.

Goodbye to skywave

Much has been written in Radio World and elsewhere about the experimental effort of WWFD(AM), licensed to Frederick, Md., and owned by Hubbard Radio, which operates in all-digital mode under special temporary authority.

Joel Oxley, senior VP/GM for Hubbard’s Washington, D.C., cluster, said the band cannot survive in its current form.

“I firmly believe AM needs go digital and say goodbye to the skywave. Having stations that are unlistenable when the sun goes down makes no sense. The extra coverage for just a few stations is not justified in this day and age,” Oxley said. “If changes aren’t made quickly to improve distribution there will be no viable business plans for most AMs.”

However, he said, the commission will only support all-digital if the radio industry expresses support for it.

Another station received experimental authority to test all-digital this year. WIOE in Fort Wayne, Ind., broadcast in MA3 for a few days in the spring but it received listener complaints, after which it ran in all-digital mostly at night. It concluded the digital experiment in September; owner Brian Walsh indicated that his listeners weren’t ready for all-digital AM.

Multicast play

John Garziglia, communications law attorney for Womble Bond Dickinson, wonders whether receiver manufacturers will make radios capable of carrying multicast signals for digital AM stations.

“Receiver manufacturers have not shown an inclination to make such receivers available, absent the FCC taking a proactive stance,” he said.

“The question is whether receiver manufacturers have to manufacture such receivers first for the FCC to move its regulatory roadblock to the carriage of multiple AM sub-channels on FM translators, like is now allowed for FM HD and FM translators — or more to the point, if the FCC does not encourage AM all-digital with multiplex sub-channels and carriage on FM translators.”

As we’ve reported, Garziglia’s client Urban One received permission to operate WYLC(AM) in Indianapolis experimentally with all-digital, but the company’s leader told Radio World the test might not happen because the FCC refused Urban One’s request to rebroadcast digital multicasts of the AM test station over two analog FM translators.

“AM radio is at best beyond challenged, and at worst headed towards extinction,” Alfred C. Liggins III said. “Any digital applications that improve coverage and the ability to deliver multiple streams of content are critical to AM’s survival.”

As of mid-September those were the only three stations that had received STAs. So at this writing WWFD remains the only all-digital AM on the air.

Tail wags dog

One veteran engineering professional told Radio World he sees “no major U.S. radio companies showing any interest in investing in AM all-digital; and that for many owners, keeping their AM stations on the air now is pretty much just about retaining their FM translator footprint rather than keeping the AM on the air on its own merits.”

The FCC says it has no plans at present for additional windows for FM translator applications exclusively for AM licensees.

Another expert envisions a day when AM broadcasters are able to geo-locate several FM translators around its service area to offer hyper-localized content — “with the FM translators carrying discrete local programming elements and the AM station carrying programming elements that cover the entire area,” this observer said.

(Such ideas for translators have been in the news recently because technology company GeoBroadcast Solutions wants the FCC to allow FM stations to air unique content on synchronized FM boosters, to create very localized “geo-targeting” ability. A group of two dozen owners then told the FCC that if it were to allow that, it should also allow translators to originate content, potentially a much bigger change in the FM landscape. It’s under such a scenario that an AM station could create the geo-targeted cluster described above.)

The unnamed expert, however, added, “There is also a chance the secondary status of cross-band translators could result in an AM station losing its paired FM translator service someday.”

Awaiting true reform

Ben Dawson, consulting engineer at Hatfield & Dawson, doesn’t believe AM revitalization really ever started.

“The real meat of the AM revitalization NPRM was to finally make realistic changes in the basic allocation rules to reflect modern noise and propagation conditions, which are significantly different than those of the 1930s, which the present rules are based upon,” he said.

“And that simply hasn’t happened. When we’ve talked with FCC staff about it, the impression we’ve gotten is that the upper echelons of the commission just don’t think it has much importance.”

Dawson believes the cross-service FM translators allocated to AM licensees have cluttered the FM band. “Translators and low-power FM stations are just being sandwiched in.”

Digital AM in the United States faces an uphill battle, Dawson said, in part because many owners and large groups object to paying licensing fees. (While Xperi has offered AM stations a license for all-digital HD Radio technology in perpetuity without fees, that offer is seen as a kickstarter rather than a long-term policy.)

“The adoption of FM, NTSC, FM stereo, digital TV; none of those had licensing fees,” Dawson continued. “And neither should digital AM. And of course, DRM [Digital Radio Mondiale] doesn’t and is already being employed in some countries.

“But we need to develop the allocation rules for all digital and movement toward that has been very slow.”

Dawson added, “The commission did change the antenna efficiency rules, which was a help, but the proposed changes in daytime groundwave overlap and returning to using only co-channel stations in skywave RSS calculations and going back to 50% rather than 25% exclusion can be considered separately from the Class A station imbroglio.”

The latter refers to contentious proposals to change the Class A “clear channel” rules, an idea that has not advanced.

On that point, veteran attorney David Oxenford of Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP sees a possible rift among large and small radio broadcasters.

“The issue seems to be a battle between local stations that want more local service full-time at the expense of the clear-channel stations whose signals would receive interference if that local service is granted, and potentially sacrificing some of the service from what are among the few still successful AM stations in major markets,” Oxenford said.

But at the commission, Al Shuldiner cited concerns from the Federal Emergency Management Agency about the possible impact on presidential alerting if Class A protections were altered. “We remain open to working with the industry to find a path forward on these proposals but do not have any immediate plans to change those protection levels.”

Strictly voluntary

On one thing, broadcasters have been clear: They oppose any kind of mandate to go all-digital — for reasons of cost, digital receiver availability and opposition to government mandates in general, and because some AM operations are in fact successful businesses.

iHeartMedia, which owns 245 AM stations, told the FCC earlier this year that it appreciates the commission’s goal of providing stations flexibility to adopt alternative technologies.

“However, it is imperative that all-digital AM service be wholly voluntary for each individual AM station, as each licensee can best determine the value to its listeners of such an all-digital transition based on the degree of digital-receiver penetration in that AM station’s demographic and market, as well as the economic costs of such a conversion.”

Read more of Al Shuldiner’s interview with Radio World.

Comment on this or any story. Email radioworld@futurenet.com. `

The post Special Report: AM Advocates Watch and Worry appeared first on Radio World.

Al Shuldiner

Radio World talked with Al Shuldiner, chief of the FCC’s Audio Division, about the commission’s stance on AM revitalization and what’s next in the proceeding.

This is a companion piece to the article “AM Advocates Watch and Worry.”

Radio World: Is AM revitalization still a focus?

Al Shuldiner: We remain focused on helping AM broadcasters to serve the public and to address the technical constraints of the AM band. We view the AM revitalization proceeding as a big success story.

Through that proceeding, the commission was able to eliminate unnecessary technical constraints on AM stations, allow the relocation of FM translator stations and authorize a large number of new cross-service FM translators.

We believe these efforts have helped a significant number of AM stations improve service and remain viable.

RW: How about AM digital and the potential of multicasting? What’s next?

Shuldiner: The commission has an open rulemaking on all-digital AM service. Commenters in that proceeding expressed strong industry support for the commission’s proposals to allow AM stations to convert to all-digital operation and we hope to move forward in that proceeding by the end of the year. [Ed. Note: Subsequent to this interview, Chairman Ajit Pai announced that the FCC will vote on this  in October.]

At the same time, the Media Bureau has continued its support for the industry’s interest in all-digital operation through the grant of experimental authorizations. Broadcasters have begun discussing AM multicasting, but the commission has not seen any detailed information on that topic.

Multicasting for AM stations could allow AM broadcasters to introduce a range of new programming for the public. It will be interesting to see if the industry develops technical reports on AM multicasting for broadcasters and the FCC to consider.

RW: Is reducing nighttime signal protection for the 50 kW Class A AM stations going to happen?   

Shuldiner: Almost two years ago, the commission sought comment on proposals to modify the interference protection criteria for Class A AM stations. Our goal was to maintain important protections for these vital stations but, at the same time, to increase the opportunity for other classes of AM stations to improve local service.

FEMA expressed concern about the impact of our proposal on Class A stations and their ability to deliver a presidential message during a national emergency. We have not identified a viable way to advance our proposal while addressing FEMA’s concerns.

We remain open to working with the industry to find a path forward on these proposals but do not have any immediate plans to change those protection levels.

RW: And will the impact of COVID-19 and the current economic climate influence the FCC’s view of AM revitalization? 

Shuldiner: Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic and economic downturn associated with the pandemic have been particularly challenging for AM broadcasters. Since March, we have been in close contact with many broadcasters to find ways to provide temporary regulatory relief to address issues related to the pandemic.

We also have heard from numerous AM broadcasters concerning unbuilt cross-service translator stations from Auctions 99 and 100. Those construction permits will begin to expire in January 2021.

Based on the pandemic’s impact on capital budgets for AM stations and the constraints the pandemic has imposed on station construction, equipment availability and travel, we recently announced a program to allow permittees of those translator stations with permits expiring during the first six months of 2021 to apply for a waiver of the construction deadline.

We hope that providing an additional six months to construction these important translator stations will help ensure that AM broadcasters have access to these critical cross-service facilities.

The post AM Revitalization: “A Big Success Story” appeared first on Radio World.

Al Shuldiner

Radio World talked with Al Shuldiner, chief of the FCC’s Audio Division, about the commission’s stance on AM revitalization and what’s next in the proceeding.

This is a companion piece to the article “AM Advocates Watch and Worry.”

Radio World: Is AM revitalization still a focus?

Al Shuldiner: We remain focused on helping AM broadcasters to serve the public and to address the technical constraints of the AM band. We view the AM revitalization proceeding as a big success story.

Through that proceeding, the commission was able to eliminate unnecessary technical constraints on AM stations, allow the relocation of FM translator stations and authorize a large number of new cross-service FM translators.

We believe these efforts have helped a significant number of AM stations improve service and remain viable.

RW: How about AM digital and the potential of multicasting? What’s next?

Shuldiner: The commission has an open rulemaking on all-digital AM service. Commenters in that proceeding expressed strong industry support for the commission’s proposals to allow AM stations to convert to all-digital operation and we hope to move forward in that proceeding by the end of the year.

At the same time, the Media Bureau has continued its support for the industry’s interest in all-digital operation through the grant of experimental authorizations. Broadcasters have begun discussing AM multicasting, but the commission has not seen any detailed information on that topic.

Multicasting for AM stations could allow AM broadcasters to introduce a range of new programming for the public. It will be interesting to see if the industry develops technical reports on AM multicasting for broadcasters and the FCC to consider.

RW: Is reducing nighttime signal protection for the 50 kW Class A AM stations going to happen?   

Shuldiner: Almost two years ago, the commission sought comment on proposals to modify the interference protection criteria for Class A AM stations. Our goal was to maintain important protections for these vital stations but, at the same time, to increase the opportunity for other classes of AM stations to improve local service.

FEMA expressed concern about the impact of our proposal on Class A stations and their ability to deliver a presidential message during a national emergency. We have not identified a viable way to advance our proposal while addressing FEMA’s concerns.

We remain open to working with the industry to find a path forward on these proposals but do not have any immediate plans to change those protection levels.

RW: And will the impact of COVID-19 and the current economic climate influence the FCC’s view of AM revitalization? 

Shuldiner: Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic and economic downturn associated with the pandemic have been particularly challenging for AM broadcasters. Since March, we have been in close contact with many broadcasters to find ways to provide temporary regulatory relief to address issues related to the pandemic.

We also have heard from numerous AM broadcasters concerning unbuilt cross-service translator stations from Auctions 99 and 100. Those construction permits will begin to expire in January 2021.

Based on the pandemic’s impact on capital budgets for AM stations and the constraints the pandemic has imposed on station construction, equipment availability and travel, we recently announced a program to allow permittees of those translator stations with permits expiring during the first six months of 2021 to apply for a waiver of the construction deadline.

We hope that providing an additional six months to construction these important translator stations will help ensure that AM broadcasters have access to these critical cross-service facilities.

The post AM Revitalization: “A Big Success Story” appeared first on Radio World.

AVNation and Systems Contractor News have partnered to create the AV Network Nation (AVN²) event, a tech discovery day for the AV community, which will be held virtually on Dec. 10.

This single-day virtual event will focus on the future of pro AV technologies with sessions covering subjects like AV over IP, digital signage, and audio networking, and will feature a digital exhibit hall with showcases from the most innovative manufacturers in the game — plus there will be plenty of time for networking and a Passport to Prizes competition.

“Our dynamic virtual event platform, which we successfully debuted at the AV/IT Summit in August and employed again for the recent Sound for Film Event, allows for real-time interaction between event attendees and technology providers,” said Adam Goldstein, VP/group publisher of Systems Contractor News. “The number of meaningful conversations between tech buyers and sellers at both events was impressive.”

“After the success of the AV/IT Summit in August, we realized our audience is hungry for additional future-forward content,” added Megan A. Dutta, content director, Systems Contractor News. “Our team is thrilled that we are able to partner with Tim Albright and his AVNation team to provide the pro AV industry with valuable education and quality networking opportunities.”

“We are ecstatic to be partnering with SCN for the AV Network Nation event. Bringing these groups together will help AV pros connect with each other, as well as the latest technology heading their way,” concluded Tim Albright, founder of AVNation. “We have all been impacted by COVID-19, but we’re ending the year on a high note learning about what’s next and joining together with our AV family.”

AV Network Nation is free to attend for qualified integrators, consultants, content creators, technology managers, and the like.

More program details will be announced soon, and registration will open in early October. For sponsorship opportunities, contact Adam Goldstein at adam.goldstein@futurenet.com.

 

The post Systems Contractor News and AVNation Launch AV Network Nation Event appeared first on Radio World.

AVNation and Systems Contractor News have partnered to create the AV Network Nation (AVN²) event, a tech discovery day for the AV community, which will be held virtually on Dec. 10.

This single-day virtual event will focus on the future of pro AV technologies with sessions covering subjects like AV over IP, digital signage, and audio networking, and will feature a digital exhibit hall with showcases from the most innovative manufacturers in the game — plus there will be plenty of time for networking and a Passport to Prizes competition.

“Our dynamic virtual event platform, which we successfully debuted at the AV/IT Summit in August and employed again for the recent Sound for Film Event, allows for real-time interaction between event attendees and technology providers,” said Adam Goldstein, VP/group publisher of Systems Contractor News. “The number of meaningful conversations between tech buyers and sellers at both events was impressive.”

“After the success of the AV/IT Summit in August, we realized our audience is hungry for additional future-forward content,” added Megan A. Dutta, content director, Systems Contractor News. “Our team is thrilled that we are able to partner with Tim Albright and his AVNation team to provide the pro AV industry with valuable education and quality networking opportunities.”

“We are ecstatic to be partnering with SCN for the AV Network Nation event. Bringing these groups together will help AV pros connect with each other, as well as the latest technology heading their way,” concluded Tim Albright, founder of AVNation. “We have all been impacted by COVID-19, but we’re ending the year on a high note learning about what’s next and joining together with our AV family.”

AV Network Nation is free to attend for qualified integrators, consultants, content creators, technology managers, and the like.

More program details will be announced soon, and registration will open in early October. For sponsorship opportunities, contact Adam Goldstein at adam.goldstein@futurenet.com.

 

The post Systems Contractor News and AVNation Launch AV Network Nation Event appeared first on Radio World.

The 2wcom Satellite Inband Remote Control server’s new Google Maps feature offers opportunities for regionalization of commands and of reports. Using the SIRC web interface, any number of locations and associated regions — so-called shapes — can be defined for a country based on Google Maps.

The Google Maps feature enables operators to generate commands (like TA Traffic Announcements) and address them exactly to the encoders of the affected region. If a command like a TA has to be carried out, the operator feeds SIRC’s Google Maps web interface with the GPS coordinates and e.g. a radius of 50 kilometers/30 miles to detect the affected encoder locations. Subsequently a switch PID command is generated, the addressed MPEG encoder receives the TA for further distribution to all receivers of the defined area.

[Check Out More Products at Radio World’s Products Section]

This new function completes SIRC server’s overall technical mission for remote management of all encoders and satellite receivers of a DVB-S/S2 network. By using SIRC, technicians have access to all devices of a system via a web interface from any computer within the network. As a result, centralized management is possible for switching relays and presets or for uploading files such as firmware updates, audio or RDS, reports and configuration. Moreover, files can be scheduled for immediate use or be stored on internal memory for usage at a later point of time. All contents stored on internal memory of remote devices are not only mirrored locally but also within the SIRC. Therefore, the network operators can always keep track of the state of each devices internal memory, without the need of a physical connection to the device.

Storage of each device is accessible via web interface and via FTP.

Info: www.2wcom.com

 

The post 2wcom’s SIRC Improves Regionalized Remote Management appeared first on Radio World.

The 2wcom Satellite Inband Remote Control server’s new Google Maps feature offers opportunities for regionalization of commands and of reports. Using the SIRC web interface, any number of locations and associated regions — so-called shapes — can be defined for a country based on Google Maps.

The Google Maps feature enables operators to generate commands (like TA Traffic Announcements) and address them exactly to the encoders of the affected region. If a command like a TA has to be carried out, the operator feeds SIRC’s Google Maps web interface with the GPS coordinates and e.g. a radius of 50 kilometers/30 miles to detect the affected encoder locations. Subsequently a switch PID command is generated, the addressed MPEG encoder receives the TA for further distribution to all receivers of the defined area.

[Check Out More Products at Radio World’s Products Section]

This new function completes SIRC server’s overall technical mission for remote management of all encoders and satellite receivers of a DVB-S/S2 network. By using SIRC, technicians have access to all devices of a system via a web interface from any computer within the network. As a result, centralized management is possible for switching relays and presets or for uploading files such as firmware updates, audio or RDS, reports and configuration. Moreover, files can be scheduled for immediate use or be stored on internal memory for usage at a later point of time. All contents stored on internal memory of remote devices are not only mirrored locally but also within the SIRC. Therefore, the network operators can always keep track of the state of each devices internal memory, without the need of a physical connection to the device.

Storage of each device is accessible via web interface and via FTP.

Info: www.2wcom.com

 

The post 2wcom’s SIRC Improves Regionalized Remote Management appeared first on Radio World.

Prior to the advent of radio broadcasting, this was a common scene in U.S. cities and towns, with citizens flocking to newspaper offices for updates on breaking news events. The crowd in this early-1920s photo is following baseball’s World Series event via scores posed on a second-floor chalkboard by a Texarkana, Arkansas/Texas daily. (Nearly a decade would pass before the city got its first radio station, KCMC.)”

By the end of the 20th century’s second decade, three key elements were in place to fuel radio broadcasting: resonant circuitry, a practical means for generating a carrier wave, and methodology for impressing speech and music on that carrier.

These waited only for someone to combine them in an effective way.

A number of individuals — most notably Reginald Fessenden, Lee de Forest and Charles Herrold — had made varying attempts at broadcasting. None took root.

There was little effort to stimulate interest among the public. Early transmissions of speech and music were directed to radio amateurs. There also was little or no notification of how to “listen in.” Nor were there regular operating schedules, nor readily available receivers for the general public. Radio sets were marketed to commercial enterprises, the military and radio amateurs.

U.S. involvement in “the Great War” further put the brakes on broadcasting, with a government edict mandating the dismantling of virtually all privately owned radio stations and apparatus in an effort to thwart possible enemy espionage involving radio.

But the war also indirectly advanced radio broadcasting. The government lifted patent restrictions on various communication technologies including the vacuum tube, which allowed multiple companies to manufacture radio gear for the U.S. Army Signal Corps.

Posters such as this may have been responsible for sparking interest in radio among young people and for creating a skilled cadre of individuals ready to move broadcasting forward at the conclusion of the Great War.

Also, large numbers of young men received Signal Corps training in radio, providing a talent pool that would help fuel broadcasting’s launch.

Westinghouse and Conrad

With the end of the war in late 1918 and a “reconversion” to a pre-war way of life, there was another key development in the road to broadcasting, an unintentional one involving a Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co. self-taught radio engineer and a farsighted senior official at that company.

Westinghouse had been producing radio gear for the U.S. military; with the armistice, this foray into a new field and its lucrative revenue stream abruptly ended.

The company still desired to retain a footprint in the radio sector, and started exploring another frontier that was opening up: international radio communications.

This stemmed from the government’s decision not to allow foreign corporations such as Marconi to exert a virtual monopoly in this area of radio, as had been the case before the war. While that chapter in radio history is too involved to relate in detail here, it resulted in the creation of the Radio Corporation of America.

RCA, along with General Electric, a large player in radio communications, wound up controlling most of the valuable radio patents.

Westinghouse attempted to enter into international radio communications, joining with the International Radio Telegraph Co., successor to Reginald Fessenden’s National Electric Signaling Company, in an attempt to secure a place in this field. The initiative failed due to postwar agreements in place by others including Marconi, Telefunken, and RCA, the new kid on the block.

This failure, coupled with the end of lucrative wartime contracts for tubes and radio apparatus, appeared to close the doors on Westinghouse’s future in radio.

Frank Conrad, courtesy IEEE History Center

In the book “The Continuous Wave: Technology and American Radio, 1900–1932,” Hugh Aitken wrote that “Westinghouse, barred from international radio by the cross-licensing agreements, seemed to have few options left; the sensible course of action was surely to call it quits as far as radio was concerned.”

Such corporate goings-on were way above the pay grade of Frank Conrad. He had helped his company develop military radio gear, and he continued to experiment with radio on his own time through his amateur radio station. Conrad joined with many other pre-war “hams” in taking to the airwaves. However, he enjoyed an advantage not available to most of his fellow amateur operators: ready access to Westinghouse vacuum tubes.

This allowed Conrad to cobble up a radiotelephone transmitter based on Raymond Heising’s “constant current” modulation system.

Tinkerer that he was, Conrad wished to monitor the performance of his station and appropriated the family phonograph as a source of audio while he stepped away to do listening tests.

Other “hams” heard the music and encouraged Conrad to provide more such “entertainment,” often requesting specific records. He soon tired of responding to individual requests and decided instead to air a “concert” on a regular basis. A local music store even began contributing new records in exchange for on-air “plugs.”

Harry P. Davis, courtesy IEEE History Center

By the fall of 1919, Conrad’s broadcasts were attracting an estimated audience of some 400 to 500. An area newspaper took interest in the activity, and a Pittsburgh department store began marketing inexpensive receivers to those wishing to enjoy Conrad’s music programs.

Westinghouse’s vice president, Harry P. Davis took notice of the attention being generated by Conrad’s “wireless musicales,” realizing that an interest in radio might exist outside of hobbyists and commercial message handlers.

Here’s how he recalled it for the 1930 book “American Beginnings”:

We watched this activity and the activity of various others who were experimenting with radiotelephony very closely. Soon came the idea which led to the initiation of a regular broadcast service. An advertisement of a local department store in a Pittsburgh newspaper calling attention to a stock of radio receivers which could be used to hear the programs sent out by Dr. Conrad led me to the conviction that efforts then being directed to develop radiotelephony as a confidential means of communication were wrong, and that this field instead offered one of widespread commercial publicity.

Right in our grasp, therefore, we had the service we had been groping for. A little study developed the great possibilities. We became convinced that we had in our hands the instrument that would be the greatest and most direct means of mass communication and mass education that had ever appeared. The natural fascination of its mystery, coupled with the ability to annihilate distance, would attract interest and open many avenues of application. It offered the possibilities of service that could be rendered without favor and without direct cost to millions.

Conrad’s amateur station was highlighted in the September 1920 issue of QST magazine two months prior to KDKA’s “big broadcast.” The microphone — a candlestick telephone “transmitter” — and other components of his radiotelephone transmitter are visible. (Getty images)

Davis encouraged Conrad to continue his experimentation on company time, with the installation of a 100-Watt transmitting station at Westinghouse’s East Pittsburgh plant.

He also made sure that the station received its share of publicity, and began to plan an event to call even more attention to the radio experimentation, one that would forever place Westinghouse and Pittsburgh in the history books as the launch point for radio broadcasting: live reporting of the 1920 presidential election returns.

“The Big Broadcast”

Davis made arrangements with the Pittsburgh Post to deliver election eve ballot counts via telephone to the combination transmitter room/studio and tapped Leo Rosenberg from the company’s publicity department to do the on-air announcing.

Donald Little, who’d worked with Conrad in designing and constructing the KDKA transmitter, was designated as the station’s “chief engineer,” and William Thomas, who possessed the necessary commercial radio license, was assigned as transmitter operator.

And to ensure that the big event would not be spoiled by a transmitter failure at the company site, Conrad agreed to keep his ham transmitter on “hot standby” in case the KDKA rig failed.

KDKA takes to the air on the evening of Nov. 2, 1920 with a program of election return reporting interspersed with recorded music. Announcer Leo Rosenberg is second from right in this Westinghouse publicity photo of the broadcast. R. S. McClelland on stool served as a “standby.” Also shown are William Thomas, the licensed transmitter operator, and John Frazier, the telephone line “operator.” (Getty Images)

Little described the Nov. 2, 1920 scene 35 years later in a story in American Heritage magazine: “The first program, which ran from about 8 p.m. to some time after midnight, consisted only of the election returns repeated into our microphone by Rosenberg from what he heard by phone from the Post downtown, interspersed with recorded music.”

“Perfect Storm” for Radio

This seminal “broadcast” was a success in every sense.

There were no reported technical glitches, with election returns flowing smoothly from the newspaper to the East Pittsburg “broadcast center.” Rosenberg was not prone to “mic fright,” and professionally and unfalteringly delivered the election news. And those who “listened in” that night let Westinghouse know about it.

As observed by Little: “The company received quite a lot of mail on this broadcast.”

This response came not only from radio amateurs who shared headphones with neighbors, but also from an election-eve “listening in” party organized by another Westinghouse employee, Lewis Warrington Chubb, who’d been placed in charge of radio engineering. Again from the American Heritage article 35 years later:

“Our election night broadcast was also picked up by a receiver and a loud-speaker which Mr. Chubb … and I installed at the Edgewood Club — this was in Edgewood, just outside of Pittsburgh. The club had an auditorium and a good many of the club members congregated there on the evening of November 2, as it was pre-advertised that they would get election returns. From time to time during the evening Mr. Chubb phoned us comments on how the program sounded and I recall he told us once that the audience preferred less music and more election returns.”

Seizing the Moment

In order to gain a better insight into what made Davis’ decision for this launch timely and successful, it’s instructive to recall that the past decade had not been an especially good time for most, with major and minor tragedies punctuating the entire decade — the sinking of the Titanic, the world war and a global influenza pandemic. The real “capper” came in late 1919 with the Volstead Act, making it illegal even for Americans to drown their sorrows in strong drink. Clearly, something was needed to help lift people out of this gloom, tragedy and misery.

That something proved to be radio.

Sidebar: Budapest Operation Predated KDKA

KDKA’s arrival in late 1920 set the stage for broadcasting as we know it. However, the concept of electronically transmitting entertainment, news and information to many people simultaneously was not new when the seminal Pittsburgh station took to the airwaves.

“Broadcasting” speech and music to a mass audience predated wireless communications. In 1883 in Budapest, Hungary, daily news transmissions were delivered CNN-style to subscribers via the existing telephone network.

As early as 1880, delivery of opera performances was being demonstrated via wired telephone networks. In 1893, a successful enterprise called Telefon Hírmondó or “telephone newspaper” launched in Budapest, Hungary utilizing telephone connectivity.

The Budapest Telefon Hírmondó broadcast service was not limited to newscasts but included such entertainment fare as operas.

It delivered a steady stream of news, sports reports and occasional musical entertainment for 12 hours or so each day.

Access to the news and entertainment service was on a subscription basis, similar to present-day cable TV operations.

This wired broadcasting enterprise was apparently quite successful and well received, as it lasted on a standalone basis for more than 40 years before being “merged” with over-the-air radio broadcast streams in 1925.

It’s reported that the 1920s and ’30s the service was attracting more than 10,000 subscribers.

Telefon Hírmondó continued well into the World War II, ending only when the Budapest telephone system was destroyed in the conflict.

Thanks

The author of this article wishes to acknowledge Rick Harris, chairman of the National Museum of Broadcasting’s Conrad Project; Mark Schubin, for information about Telefon Hírmondó; and Alex Magoun at the IEEE History Center.

Further Reading:

Aitken, Hugh G.J., “The Continuous Wave: Technology and American Radio, 1900–1932;” Princeton University Press, 1985

Douglas, Susan, “Inventing American Broadcasting 1899–1922;” The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987

Christopher H. Sterling, John Michael Kittross,“Stay Tuned: A History of American Broadcasting,” Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah, N.J., 2002

Among other sources for this article are “Amateur Radio Concerts” in Radio Amateur News, January 1920; “Amateur Radio Stations — 8XK and 2NW” in QST magazine, September 1920; “Wireless Telephone Here” in the Pittsburgh Gazette Times, Oct. 26 1919; chapter “Radio and Its Future” in the book “American Beginnings” by H.P Davis, 1930; “The Telephone Newspaper” in World’s Work Magazine, April 1901; “How the World’s Only ‘Telephone Newspaper’ Took Off,” The Article, June 16, 2019; and “A Telephone Newspaper” in Electrical Review, April 27, 1901.

 

The post Radio Broadcasting Becomes a Reality: Nov. 2, 1920 appeared first on Radio World.

Prior to the advent of radio broadcasting, this was a common scene in U.S. cities and towns, with citizens flocking to newspaper offices for updates on breaking news events. The crowd in this early-1920s photo is following baseball’s World Series event via scores posed on a second-floor chalkboard by a Texarkana, Arkansas/Texas daily. (Nearly a decade would pass before the city got its first radio station, KCMC.)”

By the end of the 20th century’s second decade, three key elements were in place to fuel radio broadcasting: resonant circuitry, a practical means for generating a carrier wave, and methodology for impressing speech and music on that carrier.

These waited only for someone to combine them in an effective way.

A number of individuals — most notably Reginald Fessenden, Lee de Forest and Charles Herrold — had made varying attempts at broadcasting. None took root.

There was little effort to stimulate interest among the public. Early transmissions of speech and music were directed to radio amateurs. There also was little or no notification of how to “listen in.” Nor were there regular operating schedules, nor readily available receivers for the general public. Radio sets were marketed to commercial enterprises, the military and radio amateurs.

U.S. involvement in “the Great War” further put the brakes on broadcasting, with a government edict mandating the dismantling of virtually all privately owned radio stations and apparatus in an effort to thwart possible enemy espionage involving radio.

But the war also indirectly advanced radio broadcasting. The government lifted patent restrictions on various communication technologies including the vacuum tube, which allowed multiple companies to manufacture radio gear for the U.S. Army Signal Corps.

Posters such as this may have been responsible for sparking interest in radio among young people and for creating a skilled cadre of individuals ready to move broadcasting forward at the conclusion of the Great War.

Also, large numbers of young men received Signal Corps training in radio, providing a talent pool that would help fuel broadcasting’s launch.

Westinghouse and Conrad

With the end of the war in late 1918 and a “reconversion” to a pre-war way of life, there was another key development in the road to broadcasting, an unintentional one involving a Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co. self-taught radio engineer and a farsighted senior official at that company.

Westinghouse had been producing radio gear for the U.S. military; with the armistice, this foray into a new field and its lucrative revenue stream abruptly ended.

The company still desired to retain a footprint in the radio sector, and started exploring another frontier that was opening up: international radio communications.

This stemmed from the government’s decision not to allow foreign corporations such as Marconi to exert a virtual monopoly in this area of radio, as had been the case before the war. While that chapter in radio history is too involved to relate in detail here, it resulted in the creation of the Radio Corporation of America.

RCA, along with General Electric, a large player in radio communications, wound up controlling most of the valuable radio patents.

Westinghouse attempted to enter into international radio communications, joining with the International Radio Telegraph Co., successor to Reginald Fessenden’s National Electric Signaling Company, in an attempt to secure a place in this field. The initiative failed due to postwar agreements in place by others including Marconi, Telefunken, and RCA, the new kid on the block.

This failure, coupled with the end of lucrative wartime contracts for tubes and radio apparatus, appeared to close the doors on Westinghouse’s future in radio.

Frank Conrad, courtesy IEEE History Center

In the book “The Continuous Wave: Technology and American Radio, 1900–1932,” Hugh Aitken wrote that “Westinghouse, barred from international radio by the cross-licensing agreements, seemed to have few options left; the sensible course of action was surely to call it quits as far as radio was concerned.”

Such corporate goings-on were way above the pay grade of Frank Conrad. He had helped his company develop military radio gear, and he continued to experiment with radio on his own time through his amateur radio station. Conrad joined with many other pre-war “hams” in taking to the airwaves. However, he enjoyed an advantage not available to most of his fellow amateur operators: ready access to Westinghouse vacuum tubes.

This allowed Conrad to cobble up a radiotelephone transmitter based on Raymond Heising’s “constant current” modulation system.

Tinkerer that he was, Conrad wished to monitor the performance of his station and appropriated the family phonograph as a source of audio while he stepped away to do listening tests.

Other “hams” heard the music and encouraged Conrad to provide more such “entertainment,” often requesting specific records. He soon tired of responding to individual requests and decided instead to air a “concert” on a regular basis. A local music store even began contributing new records in exchange for on-air “plugs.”

Harry P. Davis, courtesy IEEE History Center

By the fall of 1919, Conrad’s broadcasts were attracting an estimated audience of some 400 to 500. An area newspaper took interest in the activity, and a Pittsburgh department store began marketing inexpensive receivers to those wishing to enjoy Conrad’s music programs.

Westinghouse’s vice president, Harry P. Davis took notice of the attention being generated by Conrad’s “wireless musicales,” realizing that an interest in radio might exist outside of hobbyists and commercial message handlers.

Here’s how he recalled it for the 1930 book “American Beginnings”:

We watched this activity and the activity of various others who were experimenting with radiotelephony very closely. Soon came the idea which led to the initiation of a regular broadcast service. An advertisement of a local department store in a Pittsburgh newspaper calling attention to a stock of radio receivers which could be used to hear the programs sent out by Dr. Conrad led me to the conviction that efforts then being directed to develop radiotelephony as a confidential means of communication were wrong, and that this field instead offered one of widespread commercial publicity.

Right in our grasp, therefore, we had the service we had been groping for. A little study developed the great possibilities. We became convinced that we had in our hands the instrument that would be the greatest and most direct means of mass communication and mass education that had ever appeared. The natural fascination of its mystery, coupled with the ability to annihilate distance, would attract interest and open many avenues of application. It offered the possibilities of service that could be rendered without favor and without direct cost to millions.

Conrad’s amateur station was highlighted in the September 1920 issue of QST magazine two months prior to KDKA’s “big broadcast.” The microphone — a candlestick telephone “transmitter” — and other components of his radiotelephone transmitter are visible. (Getty images)

Davis encouraged Conrad to continue his experimentation on company time, with the installation of a 100-Watt transmitting station at Westinghouse’s East Pittsburgh plant.

He also made sure that the station received its share of publicity, and began to plan an event to call even more attention to the radio experimentation, one that would forever place Westinghouse and Pittsburgh in the history books as the launch point for radio broadcasting: live reporting of the 1920 presidential election returns.

“The Big Broadcast”

Davis made arrangements with the Pittsburgh Post to deliver election eve ballot counts via telephone to the combination transmitter room/studio and tapped Leo Rosenberg from the company’s publicity department to do the on-air announcing.

Donald Little, who’d worked with Conrad in designing and constructing the KDKA transmitter, was designated as the station’s “chief engineer,” and William Thomas, who possessed the necessary commercial radio license, was assigned as transmitter operator.

And to ensure that the big event would not be spoiled by a transmitter failure at the company site, Conrad agreed to keep his ham transmitter on “hot standby” in case the KDKA rig failed.

KDKA takes to the air on the evening of Nov. 2, 1920 with a program of election return reporting interspersed with recorded music. Announcer Leo Rosenberg is second from right in this Westinghouse publicity photo of the broadcast. R. S. McClelland on stool served as a “standby.” Also shown are William Thomas, the licensed transmitter operator, and John Frazier, the telephone line “operator.” (Getty Images)

Little described the Nov. 2, 1920 scene 35 years later in a story in American Heritage magazine: “The first program, which ran from about 8 p.m. to some time after midnight, consisted only of the election returns repeated into our microphone by Rosenberg from what he heard by phone from the Post downtown, interspersed with recorded music.”

“Perfect Storm” for Radio

This seminal “broadcast” was a success in every sense.

There were no reported technical glitches, with election returns flowing smoothly from the newspaper to the East Pittsburg “broadcast center.” Rosenberg was not prone to “mic fright,” and professionally and unfalteringly delivered the election news. And those who “listened in” that night let Westinghouse know about it.

As observed by Little: “The company received quite a lot of mail on this broadcast.”

This response came not only from radio amateurs who shared headphones with neighbors, but also from an election-eve “listening in” party organized by another Westinghouse employee, Lewis Warrington Chubb, who’d been placed in charge of radio engineering. Again from the American Heritage article 35 years later:

“Our election night broadcast was also picked up by a receiver and a loud-speaker which Mr. Chubb … and I installed at the Edgewood Club — this was in Edgewood, just outside of Pittsburgh. The club had an auditorium and a good many of the club members congregated there on the evening of November 2, as it was pre-advertised that they would get election returns. From time to time during the evening Mr. Chubb phoned us comments on how the program sounded and I recall he told us once that the audience preferred less music and more election returns.”

Seizing the Moment

In order to gain a better insight into what made Davis’ decision for this launch timely and successful, it’s instructive to recall that the past decade had not been an especially good time for most, with major and minor tragedies punctuating the entire decade — the sinking of the Titanic, the world war and a global influenza pandemic. The real “capper” came in late 1919 with the Volstead Act, making it illegal even for Americans to drown their sorrows in strong drink. Clearly, something was needed to help lift people out of this gloom, tragedy and misery.

That something proved to be radio.

Sidebar: Budapest Operation Predated KDKA

KDKA’s arrival in late 1920 set the stage for broadcasting as we know it. However, the concept of electronically transmitting entertainment, news and information to many people simultaneously was not new when the seminal Pittsburgh station took to the airwaves.

“Broadcasting” speech and music to a mass audience predated wireless communications. In 1883 in Budapest, Hungary, daily news transmissions were delivered CNN-style to subscribers via the existing telephone network.

As early as 1880, delivery of opera performances was being demonstrated via wired telephone networks. In 1893, a successful enterprise called Telefon Hírmondó or “telephone newspaper” launched in Budapest, Hungary utilizing telephone connectivity.

The Budapest Telefon Hírmondó broadcast service was not limited to newscasts but included such entertainment fare as operas.

It delivered a steady stream of news, sports reports and occasional musical entertainment for 12 hours or so each day.

Access to the news and entertainment service was on a subscription basis, similar to present-day cable TV operations.

This wired broadcasting enterprise was apparently quite successful and well received, as it lasted on a standalone basis for more than 40 years before being “merged” with over-the-air radio broadcast streams in 1925.

It’s reported that the 1920s and ’30s the service was attracting more than 10,000 subscribers.

Telefon Hírmondó continued well into the World War II, ending only when the Budapest telephone system was destroyed in the conflict.

Thanks

The author of this article wishes to acknowledge Rick Harris, chairman of the National Museum of Broadcasting’s Conrad Project; Mark Schubin, for information about Telefon Hírmondó; and Alex Magoun at the IEEE History Center.

Further Reading:

Aitken, Hugh G.J., “The Continuous Wave: Technology and American Radio, 1900–1932;” Princeton University Press, 1985

Douglas, Susan, “Inventing American Broadcasting 1899–1922;” The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987

Christopher H. Sterling, John Michael Kittross,“Stay Tuned: A History of American Broadcasting,” Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah, N.J., 2002

Among other sources for this article are “Amateur Radio Concerts” in Radio Amateur News, January 1920; “Amateur Radio Stations — 8XK and 2NW” in QST magazine, September 1920; “Wireless Telephone Here” in the Pittsburgh Gazette Times, Oct. 26 1919; chapter “Radio and Its Future” in the book “American Beginnings” by H.P Davis, 1930; “The Telephone Newspaper” in World’s Work Magazine, April 1901; “How the World’s Only ‘Telephone Newspaper’ Took Off,” The Article, June 16, 2019; and “A Telephone Newspaper” in Electrical Review, April 27, 1901.

 

The post Radio Broadcasting Becomes a Reality: Nov. 2, 1920 appeared first on Radio World.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Cable Operators May Adjust Their Rates

.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal by broadcasters and the FCC of an appeals court’s rejection of the FCC’s latest attempt to deregulate broadcast ownership.

Back in April, broadcasters and newspaper publishers petitioned the Supreme Court to review the Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision vacating most of the FCC’s effort under Chairman Ajit Pai to deregulate broadcast ownership, including by eliminating the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rules.

[Read: Supreme Court Asked to Weigh In on Media Deregulation Decision]

Echoing the FCC’s petition, media petitioners said that outdated ownership rules remain in force because a divided panel of the court has prevented the FCC from implementing “necessary adjustments to its ownership rules” that the FCC concluded would serve the public interest.

The FCC said that it has been trying to initiate ownership deregulation for 17 years but has been thwarted by a series of decisions by a divided panel of the Third Circuit. It said the most recent decision to vacate “a host of significant rule changes” was based “solely on the ground that the agency had not adequately analyzed the rules’ likely effect on female and minority ownership of broadcast stations.”

The FCC argues that for those 17 years the court has blocked it from exercising its mandate by Congress to repeal or modify any ownership rule it determines is no longer in the public interest.

The Supreme Court does not comment on why it takes cases, simply listing the appeals it has agreed to hear.

The FCC and Third Circuit have been sparring over successive attempts to deregulate broadcasting for most of two decades. This is the first time the Supreme Court has gotten involved.

“Of course, we are disappointed at this additional delay,” said Benton Institute Senior Counselor Andrew Jay Schwartzman. “But we are confident the court will see that the FCC has failed to obey its mandate to promote diversity in media voices.”

The post Supremes to Hear Broadcast Dereg Case appeared first on Radio World.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal by broadcasters and the FCC of an appeals court’s rejection of the FCC’s latest attempt to deregulate broadcast ownership.

Back in April, broadcasters and newspaper publishers petitioned the Supreme Court to review the Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision vacating most of the FCC’s effort under Chairman Ajit Pai to deregulate broadcast ownership, including by eliminating the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rules.

[Read: Supreme Court Asked to Weigh In on Media Deregulation Decision]

Echoing the FCC’s petition, media petitioners said that outdated ownership rules remain in force because a divided panel of the court has prevented the FCC from implementing “necessary adjustments to its ownership rules” that the FCC concluded would serve the public interest.

The FCC said that it has been trying to initiate ownership deregulation for 17 years but has been thwarted by a series of decisions by a divided panel of the Third Circuit. It said the most recent decision to vacate “a host of significant rule changes” was based “solely on the ground that the agency had not adequately analyzed the rules’ likely effect on female and minority ownership of broadcast stations.”

The FCC argues that for those 17 years the court has blocked it from exercising its mandate by Congress to repeal or modify any ownership rule it determines is no longer in the public interest.

The Supreme Court does not comment on why it takes cases, simply listing the appeals it has agreed to hear.

The FCC and Third Circuit have been sparring over successive attempts to deregulate broadcasting for most of two decades. This is the first time the Supreme Court has gotten involved.

“Of course, we are disappointed at this additional delay,” said Benton Institute Senior Counselor Andrew Jay Schwartzman. “But we are confident the court will see that the FCC has failed to obey its mandate to promote diversity in media voices.”

The post Supremes to Hear Broadcast Dereg Case appeared first on Radio World.